[RGlasel]

I suspect that the advanced amateur/pro segment, and I think this is distinct from the photojournalist segment, is probably still quite healthy. People who are serious about their photography will continue to use serious cameras.

You can even take the true professional market (users who rely on photography to earn a living) out of the equation. The number of serious amateurs dwarfs the number of professional photographers and they purchase photographic equipment because it makes them feel good, not because they have to. Since photographic equipment doesn't wear out very quickly, and the equipment already on the market is not a limiting factor to the quantity or quality of work that can be produced by professionals, the serious amateur market has much better potential. Even if the number of professional photographers continues to decrease, the demand for professional level equipment doesn't have to follow suit.

[normhead]

Predicting the future of the camera market proved challenging in the past – IDC (the American market research, analysis and advisory firm) failed to predict what will happen to the mirrorless camera market. In 2012 they concluded that in 2014 we will see no less than 13 million mirrorless cameras sold worldwide. Only 3 million mirrorless cameras were actually sold…

Where all those mirrorless is the future guys when you need them?

Mirrorless cameras (despite all the hype) are still just 7% of the entire camera market (up from a mere 5% in 2013)

.

There's definitely some faces that could have some facts rubbed into them real good, but of course, we're too mature to go around saying "I told you so." or "na , na , na , an, na"

And who is still doing pretty good in all this? The people selling lenses. What does that mean.. people are content with their bodies and have decided the best way to improve on what they have is to get new lenses. 24% drop in DSLR sales, but only 12% drop in lens sales. At least I don't see any other way to read it.

Americans don’t like mirrorless cameras – well, this may be true (the numbers don’t lie) but again – there isn’t anything new here – mirrorless cameras have always been a real success story mostly in Japan (and to a much lesser degree in other parts of Asia) and far less so in the U.S. and Europe – this is not a 2013 phenomena.

Duh...

[RGlasel]

Where all those mirrorless is the future guys when you need them?

I blame the Internet. Somewhere out in cyberspace is someone who thinks just like we do, no matter how far out we are. The other problem is that the Internet makes us believe that somewhere out there is the product with exactly the features we want, when in fact, even if such a product existed, our wants would change as soon as we got it in our hands. The end result is that manufacturers just keep changing the trim on their existing products until they find a hit, to be exploited until the well runs dry, and true innovation, products that satisfy wants in truly new, unanticipated ways, never get the resources necessary to build a market for them. But those are first world problems.

[Rondec]

If you aren't burdened with redundant capacity in a shrinking market it is a good time. Declines end and become expansions.

Same thing as investing during a recession. When it ends you are already expanding while others are still contracting.

Very interesting data on how little mirrorless really matters.

I find it interesting as well. I think it says that the things that mirrorless bring to the table aren't that much different from the things that a traditional SLR brings to the table. People used to shooting with a D800 see the mirrorless cameras as tiny, but folks who aren't familiar with ILCs see them all as big and bulky, particularly once you include a lens. In addition, some of the features that are "killer features" like 15 fps shooting with the Samsung NX probably aren't generating sales.

If there is a shift to mirrorless over the next several years, it will be because the camera companies see that they can make more money selling them than SLRs.

[osv]

Mirrorless cameras (despite all the hype) are still just 7% of the entire camera market (up from a mere 5% in 2013)

yes, the mirrorless market is growing, while the DSLR market is shrinking... thanks for pointing that out

"NO drop in mirrorless produced
24% drop in DSLR produced in 2014"

LensVid Exclusive: What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2014? - LensVid.comLensVid.com

sorta makes one wonder what the future of a ff pentax ovf camera is going to be like.

[tennjed]

It could be economic conditions. I could be upgrade fatigue. It could also be the fact that we are entering an era where fewer and fewer folks actually need a camera. There was a time, not that long ago, during which, if you wanted to take "good" photographs, you had to buy a camera. Nowadays, many of those folks find the camera feature of their cell phone to be more than adequate for recording quality images. Honestly, I cant think of anyone-family or friend- that I know, who needs a camera. The market for cameras is now pretty much populated only by photography enthusiasts. I think Thom Hogan has harped on this for quite a while. If the camera industry is going to see any significant growth, they are going to have to think of ways to piggy-back on modern communication technology..... And make it easy.

Imagine if, when you purchase your Pentax K3, K5, K2s, etc., you punch a couple of buttons in the menus and, from then on, it automatically sends photos to your Iphone, if your I phone is anywhere near the camera. I am talking about automatic..... No need for fooling around with the camera wireless connection every time you want to transfer photos; essentially making a press of the cameras shutter button the functional equivalent of taking a photo with the phone. Many folks would gladly accept an opportunity send superior images, but not at the expense of complication. It doesn't take much in the way of complexity to frustrate folks.

[reeftool]

I think the biggest reason for this is simply that the market has matured. The large influx of new digital shooters coming from film is over. Most photographers are on their second body (or more) and see no real reason to upgrade until their current camera fails. A lens is a one time purchase. The big boom is over. Adding new gimmicks isn't enough to get large amounts of photographers to lay out thousands just to have a couple of new features.

[mohb]

Most photographers are on their second body (or more) and see no real reason to upgrade until their current camera fails. A lens is a one time purchase.

If they don't read the forums they will have no idea how awful their cameras are in low light or how dreadful the AF is because their cameras still take the great pictures that they always have

[reeftool]

If they don't read the forums they will have no idea how awful their cameras are in low light or how dreadful the AF is because their cameras still take the great pictures that they always have

And they go out and spent thousands and find their AF still sucks.

[redrockcoulee]

I think the biggest reason for this is simply that the market has matured. The large influx of new digital shooters coming from film is over. Most photographers are on their second body (or more) and see no real reason to upgrade until their current camera fails. A lens is a one time purchase. The big boom is over. Adding new gimmicks isn't enough to get large amounts of photographers to lay out thousands just to have a couple of new features.

totally agree

I was in a large camera store in Toronto last week and the clerk told me they had experienced an upswing in film sales the last two years and the same story has been stated many other places. Perhaps 0.05% of the decrease in dslr sales is people buying film cameras.

When I first got my Nikon D200 at work when it was flying off the shelf the reviews were overwhelmingly positive and so many people used it for professional work. My K-r for the most part runs circles around it. How much better are the K5 series or the K3 compared to Nikon top of the line D1X or D2X. There were such huge differences in one generation at that time that many people automatically upgraded. How many here did not upgrade from the K5 to the K5II or from the K5II to the K3? And those here for the most part are avid followers of gear. For the average person as long as the dslr or point and shoot is giving them great images why spend the money on a new one when the improvements are incremental rather than evolutionary? As stated above, the market has matured.

[Venturi]

I got to put my hands on the new Olympus the other day and I was floored by it - and truthfully very little in the realm of technology impresses me.
Functionally and ergonomically it's every bit as good - or better - than anything Pentax offers. The EVF is smooth - the AF is wicked fast - it feels solid in my hands - the controls are intuitive - they absolutely nailed the articulated screen design and UI integration - it truly is a wonderful tool, and it's rather beautiful too. The only drawback for me is the media size; m43 is just too small for my aesthetic.

[RGlasel]

The only drawback for me is the media size; m43 is just too small for my aesthetic.

I don't follow, m43 is just a sensor size combined with a short flange distance, so there isn't room for a mirror box. Media is what the image is viewed on, not the device capturing the image. If you are referring to the aesthetic of this particular micro four-thirds camera, well the m43 system is designed to allow for smaller cameras, so if the aesthetics of small cameras don't appeal to you, look at a different sensor format. There is nothing to stop Olympus or any other camera manufacturer from building larger cameras in the m43 system, but presumably no one else can see the point of doing that. The form following function aesthetic seems to be deeply ingrained.

[wildman]

I got to put my hands on the new Olympus

Exactly which "new Olympus"?

[Venturi]

Exactly which "new Olympus"?

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

---------- Post added 03-07-15 at 03:00 PM ----------

I don't follow, m43 is just a sensor size combined with a short flange distance, so there isn't room for a mirror box. Media is what the image is viewed on, not the device capturing the image.

Actually ... media is just as much about what the image is created upon, e.g. the "recording media". Film, tape, paper, canvas, clay, stone, and yes even digital are all types of media. And for me, size is of significant concern.

If you are referring to the aesthetic of this particular micro four-thirds camera, well the m43 system is designed to allow for smaller cameras, so if the aesthetics of small cameras don't appeal to you, look at a different sensor format.

I wasn't. Micro 4/3rd is just too small, for me. I'm not thrilled with APS-C either. But the size jump to 35mm just isn't worth the price difference, and the price difference jumping to medium format is currently prohibitive, so I make do in the digital world with APS-C.

There is nothing to stop Olympus or any other camera manufacturer from building larger cameras in the m43 system, but presumably no one else can see the point of doing that. The form following function aesthetic seems to be deeply ingrained.

I said nothing negative about size of the camera, and if you read my post you'd know I had some very favorable things to say about both its form and its function. The only negative, which is purely subjective, is the size of the media being too small for my own personal aesthetic.

What I did not spend much time saying, but perhaps I should have, is that Pentax, and Canon, and Nikon, and Sony, and Panasonic, and Sigma are all just making more and more complex, ugly, heavy, blobs of black that go ping. They do more and more things "for you" while at the same time making the process of making them do it more complex. That's why I've fallen in love with Fuji, and while it takes a bit more setup effort initially am now rather enamored with Olympus (except for the 4/3rds media).

[wildman]

What Happened to the Photography Industry

The industry hasn't changed the buyer (market) has.

With digital has come a level of automation that has made capturing a useable image a mundane process available to anyone that can press a button.
For the average picture taker (for lack of a better term) camera gear has no more special mystique than his toaster - it's just another household appliance.

It's people like us, who worry about how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin, that are the odd balls not the snap shooters - they are the mainstream photo market and always have been.